Opinion
21211-19L
07-01-2024
MEADOWFIELD LIMITED, AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO ETA HOLDING LLC, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge
This I.R.C. section 6330(d) case is before the Court on (1) respondent's Motion to Remand, filed June 1, 2022; and (2) petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery, filed June 6, 2022. Each party objects to the other's motion. A hearing was conducted on the motions in Houston, Texas, on May 14, 2024. Counsel for the parties appeared and were heard.
Both motions center around whether the notice of deficiency (notice) that gave rise to the underlying liability that respondent is attempting to collect was mailed to petitioner's last known address as required by I.R.C. section 6212. According to respondent, the settlement officer who conducted the I.R.C. section 6330(b) administrative hearing neglected to confirm that it was. The remand, according to respondent's counsel, is necessary to allow the settlement officer to do so.
According to petitioner, the notice was not sent to petitioner's last known address. Petitioner now seeks documents apparently in the possession of respondent's counsel that are relevant to the dispute between them with respect to petitioner's last known address at the time the notice was issued.
Respondent's counsel has refused to turn over the documents arguing that the documents need not be turned over at this stage of the proceedings. As respondent's counsel views the mater, petitioner is entitled to the information, but not during the remand stage. According to respondent's counsel, neither informal nor formal discovery is appropriate in cases such as this one when the matter has been remanded to respondent's Appeals Office.
Although we can see the attraction to respondent's approach that might lead to a resolution of the case, or issues in the case, before informal or formal discovery is necessary, we are aware of nothing in Title VII Discovery, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, or otherwise in the jurisprudence of the Court that precludes the use of formal discovery while a section 6330(d) case has been remanded. We are also not completely convinced that a remand is necessary in order to allow informed consideration of the dispute between the parties over the petitioner's last known address. Nevertheless, if only to allow the case to move forward it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted. It is further
ORDERED that this case is remanded to respondent's Appeals Office for further administrative proceedings to be conducted not later than August 16, 2024, to address whether the notice was issued to petitioner's last known address. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's motion is granted. It is further
ORDERED that copies of the yet-to-be identified documents referenced in paragraph 11 of respondent's motion must be turned over to petitioner's counsel not later than 10 days before the further administrative proceedings contemplated in the previous decretal paragraph are scheduled. It is further
ORDERED that not later than August 30, 2024, in a joint written report, or separate written reports, advise the Court whether their dispute over petitioner's last known address has been resolved.